The Blog of Hobbes

I have greatly enjoyed D.A.Carson’s review of three books on the bible, posted at the Reformation21 website. As ever, Carson writes with penetration, clarity and grace. It is a long article, so it has taken me some time to work my way through it. But, it’s been well worth it. Along the way, I enjoyed the following insight from Carson’s overview of the third chapter of John Webster’s book Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch:

Webster’s third chapter, “Reading in the Economy of Grace,” is a penetrating and sometimes moving contrast of two theologies of reading, or, more precisely, two anthropologies of reading. On the one side stands Schopenhauer, who embodies attitudes to reading that dominate today’s culture; on the other side stand Calvin and Bonhoeffer, with quite different approaches to reading Scripture. Schopenhauer contrasts reading with “thinking for yourself”: too much reading may so swamp the mind that the mind’s originality is squashed. The summum bonum, then, remains the human mind, the mind’s autonomy, its originality. By contrast, Calvin and Bonhoeffer insist that thought must be subordinate to the Word. For the Christian, reading Scripture “thus involves mortification of the free-range intellect which believes itself to be at liberty to devote itself to all manner of sources of fascination” (90). Or again:

For Calvin, the counter to the vanity, instability and sheer artfulness of the impious self is “another and better help”, namely “the light of his Word” by which God becomes “known unto salvation.” God counters pride by self-revelation through Scripture. Scripture is on Calvin’s account “a special gift, where God, to instruct the church, not merely uses mute teachers but also opens his most hallowed lips. Not only does he teach the elect to look upon a God, but also shows himself as the God upon whom they are to look”. . . . This does not entail wholesale abandonment of any appropriation of the tools of historical inquiry, but raises a question about their usefulness by asking whether they can foster childlike reading of the text (77).

With the confidence and insight that only a wife can possess, my wife claims that I am addicted to books. In my more reflective moments (or, “less proud” moments), I can admit that this statement is not totally untrue. I do tend to purchase 2 books for every book that I read. But, if a great book is spotted in a second-hand bookshop, it would be careless not to buy it. Who is to say it will not be snapped up that same day by someone who shares my fine taste in books? It must be bought! After all, it is very cheap!

About this time last year, I was challenged to go through a whole year without buying a book. I confidently took up the challenge. Once I realised what I had done, I subsequently softened the blow by allowing some procurement, but with the restraint of a tight budget. Very quickly this budget was blown. Massively and without remorse.

I am tempted to begin this challenge once again. I have plenty of books on my shelves that I have not yet read - and some of these are Puritan classics that demand slow reading (particularly a set of “Puritan Papers”, edited by J.I.Packer and D.M. Lloyd-Jones), and some big contemporary work (e.g. N.T. Wright). I have also recently re-joined the University of St. Andrews library, so I can plunder their stock of commentaries for sermon preparation, etc. So, really, I don’t need to buy any new books for at least a year.

So, here I stand: I will not buy a book for myself until 2009! As a token of public accountability, I have configured a day counter on the sidebar.

Oh, and for the record, the last book I bought was “The Deliberate Church” by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander. A fine book on Church if ever I read one. I intend to blog through this book once I have finished reading it, probably after Christmas.